There’s always tension between ministers and mandarins, but strong leaders see
it through

Even the most hard-hearted political cynics must find it in their hearts to pity David Cameron this week. His in-tray is already piled high with seemingly intractable issues: Europe, the deficit, the lack of growth, the Tories’ poor showing in the polls, the perfidious Lib Dems threatening the Coalition’s unity.

Now, as if these weren’t enough, the poor blighter has been walloped over the head by news of a civil war in his own back yard, with ministers and mandarins allegedly at each other’s throats. So serious is the Whitehall battle said to be that even respectable critics are warning that it could put the “effectiveness” of Mr Cameron’s Government “at risk”, while others say it could “derail his reforms”.

Really? If the reactions of other denizens of Downing Street are anything to go by, this week’s slew of revelations about the wars within Whitehall will have left the Prime Minister bemused. As one senior figure said in puzzled tones: “But we don’t have a massive crisis. We don’t have government paralysis. This whole thing has been massively overblown .We’re not having meetings about it. We’re not even talking about it.”

So where has it all come from, and is there any basis to the claims? Certainly, there has been a dog’s breakfast of accusations of Civil Service incompetence, covering everything from its failure to get to the bottom of Plebgate to the mismanagement of major projects, and claims that Government policy is being actively blocked by officials. It is also true that there have been real tensions between civil servants and ministers in a few departments – but only a few – and that there is a tussle between Whitehall and a small number of politicians as to whether ministers should have the right to choose their own top officials.

Most of the claims are questionable, to say the least. For example, the idea that officials are blocking reform when there are huge changes well under way in health, education, welfare and defence is patent nonsense. There are some real weaknesses in Whitehall – project management being one, as the fiasco over the West Coast mainline franchise so vividly showed. Yet it is hard to see how any failings, either real or imagined, would be addressed by allowing ministers to appoint their cronies to top Civil Service posts.

The pot is being stirred by a small number of ministers, including Theresa May and Francis Maude, by some of the more aggressive special advisers, and by the inimitable Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron’s erstwhile policy adviser. Seen off by the Civil Service, the barefoot guru is now in California, from where he has been lobbing grenades back at Whitehall.

One of his claims is that often Downing Street only discovered what was being done in the Government's name via the media. “I’m sure that’s true,” says one insider tartly, “but that is because Steve Hilton never came to meetings, looked at emails or read any Government papers. There are always leaks, of course, but I’ve never known of any announcement that those at the centre didn’t know about. You might disagree with some of them, but that’s a different matter.”

The suggestion that officials are blocking reform seems especially bizarre. One of those who has had an abrasive relationship with some of his civil servants is Michael Gove. Yet with the tough-minded Education Secretary in the saddle, the number of free schools has risen from nothing to nearly 100 and the number of academies from some 200 to 2,500. Strong ministers still get their way.

Or take health. As Nick Timmins pointed out in a report on the health reforms, some of Andrew Lansley’s strongest opponents believed civil servants should have done more to stop his changes. But as one insider told Timmins: “You cannot have a set of senior officials taking on the elected government of the day and saying 'We are not going to do it’.” Another said: “We didn’t just lie back and do nothing… but I think the department was overzealous in its attempt to please ministers.”

If ministers were allowed to appoint their own top officials, the risk of Whitehall being led by a cadre of yes men would be even greater. The idea’s supporters insist they would still be happy to have their officials approved by the Civil Service Commission to make sure they were impartial and high-calibre. Yet this slope would prove slippery indeed, giving entrée to all sorts of vested interests. Where would ministers find the right outsiders to fill top posts? No doubt big arms companies would happily recommend appropriate appointments to the defence ministry – and the major IT groups would be more than keen to run Whitehall’s technology projects.

Of course, Parliament might insist that the way to guard against accusations of cronyism or corruption would be to give MPs the right to scrutinise and veto appointments. Yet opening that particular Pandora’s Box would seriously weaken the power of ministers. Yes, it happens in America – but as MPs on the public administration select committee were told last week, when Obama took office in 2008, his personnel director and half a dozen assistants had to make more than 13,000 appointments – and it took months. We surely do not want to go that way.

Mind you, it looks as if Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, will block such a move. This week, he said some of Mr Maude’s proposals for ministers to have much more say in Whitehall appointments were “up for discussion”. As Sir Humphrey might say, this looks like a policy of “masterly inactivity”. It could prove a winner in the Whitehall “wars”.